This poem, "Night Song at Amalfi," written by Sara Teasdale is one I'm assuming of faith in God. It seems to me that the woman in the poem in searching for answers in her life regarding the man that has fallen in love with. She wants to know how she should love him, and all she hears is silence. So, she concludes that her answer is silence. If I'm right in saying that asking "the heaven of stars . . . Silence above" is another way of saying that she was asking God, then I think she's missing the point, maybe she's not really listening to what God's answer is. On the other hand, when she asks below, this might mean that she's indeed not asking God and is searching for her answer in all of the wrong places. I interpretted the poem to mean that she is upset by the answer that she thinks she has, that she is suppossed to leave her love alone for now and for the rest of her life. If that is God's answer, then she has to have faith that that answer is the only truly answer, even though she is displeased with it. She would probably give him anything if she could, whatever answer she heard, I'm sure she would carry out. However, at the moment, she must be patient. The story in this poem almost seems unfinsihed. I want to know what happens next. In a way, I too, just like the woman, am unsatisfied. - AGe-c Mar 13, 2008
To be silent is to stand by and do nothing; it is to just let things happen and not make things happen. What the speaker of this poem is doing is asking outside forces exactly what to do in the case of love, but the speaker is missing the point that there is no instruction manual or anything like that for love; there is no answer without, but the answers are rather within. By being silent, the speaker is not expressing his/her emotions and is instead sitting alone all indecisive as to what to do about this love. This indecisiveness leads nowhere, and no I don't think that the message is one of patience. I don't think that patience is the solution because one cannot just expect love to fall into one's lap, but must rather put one's self out there and express one's emotions. I mean, you can ask for guidance and things like that, but in the end you have to go with your gut. The heavens will not give the speaker an answer nor will the deepest depths concede a response. I think that this is the most important part of the poem because it says that the answer as to what to do will not come from above or below, but must rather come from you and you alone. Yes, you can look and search without, but as I said before, the answer will always truly lie within you. The last lines of this poem form a question about giving silence a whole life long. In all honesty, if someone is truly in love, they cannot possibly keep silent their whole life long because the feelings will eventually burst out one way or another. If this is love, then the speaker must do something with the feelings because feelings are useless unless there is some kind of action attached to them.- KRi-c Mar 13, 2008
I thought that this poem was referencing more the idea that actions speak louder than words. The speaker looked what to give her love, but the only answer she got was silence. I do feel when you are in love, it is important to say it, but the actions are what prove it. I think the message is to show your lover how much you care about them without using words. But this of course it extremely difficult, for both parties. It's hard to think of how to show someone how much you care without words, and on the other end it can be hard when you don't hear the concrete permanance of the words. In the last stanza I think the speaker is talking about how it is easy to give words in the form of weeping or a song, but to give silence, that is much more difficult. I think the question is, is the reader willing to give what it takes to show he/she cares without words? For his/her whole life? - adi-c Mar 13, 2008
I interpreted this poem differently than the other responses here. I did not find that it made me think of faith in God at all, nor did it make me think of nothingness. Rather, I thought that the speaker was asking the most amazing and powerful things in the world--the sky and the sea--how she could adequately express just as grand of a feeling. Neither the stars nor the sea attempted to answer, since their grandeur could never be expressed in words alone. Therefore, in the last stanza, the woman realizes that, in the same way, there is nothing she could ever make or give that could become a material substitution for her love. Therefore, she must simply love for her whole life, she must carry that emotion with her always. Material gifts, though far more convenient and easy, can never be a substitute for the gift that she knows she must give, which is the emotion of love. - lsi-c Mar 13, 2008
I think that the poem was specifically left open ended in order to let the reader interpret it to their own desire. To a faithful person it could be a poem about how can you give love to God when he seems not to answer back to you? The asking of the heavens coupled with the asking of the deep show a structure of opposition in which the person tries to look for God throughout out earht, in the deeps and in the heavens yet still hears nothing. In the end still ready but not sure about how to give her love she waits in silence because she does not feel God's presence in her life. However, another interpretation entirely could just be that the person in the poem is just looking for a way to love someone that she loves alot but can never express because no matter where she looks she cannot find a way to show her love of him so she waits in silence knowing that unless something changes she will wait her entire life. I think that the last interpretation is probably closer to what the author intended because there is really no mention of divinity and usually when we refer to God in pronouns we capitalize them but the him's in NIght Song at Amalfi are not capitalized so I would think that the author intended a more secular interpretation. - DGr-c
At first I bought the argument that this poem was about appealing to God for an answer about what to do with love but Lsi brought up a great point.I guess I am having a difficult time sticking with asking God a question about love along with looking for answers in all of the wrong places because of one line… “down where the fishes go--” If this poem was really about looking for answers in all the wrong places, why would the poet mention fishes.That just doesn’t seem to fit.I don’t equate the wrong places to find love with fish in the ocean.I think that Lsi is right in the belief that the poet is talking about not being able to match the grandeur of nature and falling short in what she can do for her lover.I don’t think that she is struggling to find a way to express her love and therefore lives her life in silence as Dgr suggests.She plainly states some ways to do it like weeping or singing.She has an idea of a way to do it but it simply falls short.She has an enormous task in trying to match what nature is capable of doing and she doesn’t think she will be able to match it. - kli-c Mar 13, 2008
To be silent is to stand by and do nothing; it is to just let things happen and not make things happen. What the speaker of this poem is doing is asking outside forces exactly what to do in the case of love, but the speaker is missing the point that there is no instruction manual or anything like that for love; there is no answer without, but the answers are rather within. By being silent, the speaker is not expressing his/her emotions and is instead sitting alone all indecisive as to what to do about this love. This indecisiveness leads nowhere, and no I don't think that the message is one of patience. I don't think that patience is the solution because one cannot just expect love to fall into one's lap, but must rather put one's self out there and express one's emotions. I mean, you can ask for guidance and things like that, but in the end you have to go with your gut. The heavens will not give the speaker an answer nor will the deepest depths concede a response. I think that this is the most important part of the poem because it says that the answer as to what to do will not come from above or below, but must rather come from you and you alone. Yes, you can look and search without, but as I said before, the answer will always truly lie within you. The last lines of this poem form a question about giving silence a whole life long. In all honesty, if someone is truly in love, they cannot possibly keep silent their whole life long because the feelings will eventually burst out one way or another. If this is love, then the speaker must do something with the feelings because feelings are useless unless there is some kind of action attached to them.-
I thought that this poem was referencing more the idea that actions speak louder than words. The speaker looked what to give her love, but the only answer she got was silence. I do feel when you are in love, it is important to say it, but the actions are what prove it. I think the message is to show your lover how much you care about them without using words. But this of course it extremely difficult, for both parties. It's hard to think of how to show someone how much you care without words, and on the other end it can be hard when you don't hear the concrete permanance of the words. In the last stanza I think the speaker is talking about how it is easy to give words in the form of weeping or a song, but to give silence, that is much more difficult. I think the question is, is the reader willing to give what it takes to show he/she cares without words? For his/her whole life?
-
I interpreted this poem differently than the other responses here. I did not find that it made me think of faith in God at all, nor did it make me think of nothingness. Rather, I thought that the speaker was asking the most amazing and powerful things in the world--the sky and the sea--how she could adequately express just as grand of a feeling. Neither the stars nor the sea attempted to answer, since their grandeur could never be expressed in words alone. Therefore, in the last stanza, the woman realizes that, in the same way, there is nothing she could ever make or give that could become a material substitution for her love. Therefore, she must simply love for her whole life, she must carry that emotion with her always. Material gifts, though far more convenient and easy, can never be a substitute for the gift that she knows she must give, which is the emotion of love. -
I think that the poem was specifically left open ended in order to let the reader interpret it to their own desire. To a faithful person it could be a poem about how can you give love to God when he seems not to answer back to you? The asking of the heavens coupled with the asking of the deep show a structure of opposition in which the person tries to look for God throughout out earht, in the deeps and in the heavens yet still hears nothing. In the end still ready but not sure about how to give her love she waits in silence because she does not feel God's presence in her life. However, another interpretation entirely could just be that the person in the poem is just looking for a way to love someone that she loves alot but can never express because no matter where she looks she cannot find a way to show her love of him so she waits in silence knowing that unless something changes she will wait her entire life. I think that the last interpretation is probably closer to what the author intended because there is really no mention of divinity and usually when we refer to God in pronouns we capitalize them but the him's in NIght Song at Amalfi are not capitalized so I would think that the author intended a more secular interpretation.
-
At first I bought the argument that this poem was about appealing to God for an answer about what to do with love but Lsi brought up a great point. I guess I am having a difficult time sticking with asking God a question about love along with looking for answers in all of the wrong places because of one line… “down where the fishes go--” If this poem was really about looking for answers in all the wrong places, why would the poet mention fishes. That just doesn’t seem to fit. I don’t equate the wrong places to find love with fish in the ocean. I think that Lsi is right in the belief that the poet is talking about not being able to match the grandeur of nature and falling short in what she can do for her lover. I don’t think that she is struggling to find a way to express her love and therefore lives her life in silence as Dgr suggests. She plainly states some ways to do it like weeping or singing. She has an idea of a way to do it but it simply falls short. She has an enormous task in trying to match what nature is capable of doing and she doesn’t think she will be able to match it.
-